Paul and Women

[Stan1953]

Gday By Grace how's it going. It's interesting that the silence concerning men in the church was regarding unfettered tongue speaking do you suggest this is also the context for women? That is are you saying both instructions of silence are about tongue speaking only ?
1Co 14:27-28 KJV If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 1Co 14:34-35 KJV Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (35) And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Am I understanding correctly that you think 1 Cor 14:27-28 (NIV) is addressing men only? If you are that is NOT the case. He is addressing ALL those in the Corinthian church, both men and women.

Again as far as 1 Cor 14:34-35 (NIV) is concerned please see my explanation in post #36. Paul is not issuing a command here, he is quoting an issue that was addressed to him. You have to read this along with 1 Cor 14:36-38 (NIV) to get the proper context. I know it's not something that people look for, but verse 36 is a sarcastic/facetious response by Paul to this issue of women remaining silent.

 

[By Grace]

Oh dear I'd hate to have an orphaned Frankenstein scripture for a doctrine :biggrin Maybe some redaction is in order to make the stove hotter.

By Grace I haven't given a full synopsis of my understanding of 1Cor 14 but have only presented a starting point for discussion. Regarding context did you see my question concerning the type of speaking in question? Here it is again.

Gday By Grace how's it going. It's interesting that the silence concerning men in the church was regarding unfettered tongue speaking do you suggest this is also the context for women? That is are you saying both instructions of silence are about tongue speaking only ?

1Co 14:27-28 KJV If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 1Co 14:34-35 KJV Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (35) And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

`

I thought I gave you the answer in the gist of the reply previously. Evidently, that did not come through clearly, so here is a further expansion of that topic.

For some reason, you are failing to keep the purpose and the context of the passage in mind. The purpose of the passage is to remind the Corinthians to stop the "worship service" that evolved into chaos. While the usage of glossalia was mentioned, it was mentioned in the course of describing the chaos of their gatherings. In other words, while there are some who would make a big deal about tongues in the church, (my position is best described as "seek not, but forbid not" base4d on 1 Cor 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order. ) I do not believe that it was a major issue for Paul. He mentioned that he practices glossalia in the passage.

What is the big issue for Paul is chaos:

1 Corinthians 14: 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.​

.
Notice the limitations Paul places on tongues:

1. It must be done by AT LEAST two, but NOT MORE THAN three people (verse 27a)
2. It MUST be interpreted by ONE person (verse 27b)
3. If there is no interpreter available, then the man giving the glossalia should be silent (verse 28a)
4. If the man wants to "do his glossalia" and no one is available to interpret, then he must do it silently and to himself (verse 28b)
5. If there are those with the gift of prophecy (which I believe includes the proclamation of the Word) then let no more than three do it (verse 29a)
6. In that case, the members of the assembly are to hear and discern about what the prophets say (verse 29b)
7. If a special sort of knowledge comes to another, then he must not interrupt the one standing and speaking. (verse 30)

Can you imagine being in a church where some are running around in the aisles, some are barking like dogs or wolves, and some are laying prone on the floor and others are convulsing with laughter, ALL at the same time? In my imagination, that seems to be the type of chaos that was in the Corinthian church.

Can you see what I mean by context, and how it applies to this Scripture passage? What I am doing is rebelling at the position that many people take when reading the passage is that they are attempting to make the remedies for particular problems into universal practices for the entire church. I realize that I may be stepping on some toes here, perhaps shooting some "sacred cows" and I do not intend to do that.

However my position remains that if anyone takes verses out of their context, the result is always a pretext. The context of chapter 14 is that Paul addresses some significant problem issues in the Corinthian church. For example Chapter 11 deals with some issues surrounding the Eucharist, having factions and the consequent fightings, and having discernment at the Lord's table so that some do not heap condemnation upon themselves.

Therefore just as one should not take the situations mentioned in chapter 11 as normal for the church, so also should one not take the situations mentioned in chapter 14 as normal, either. If a practice is wrong in one chapter, then barring any obvious brakes (Chapters and verses were added much later to the Bible, and Paul did not make the verses or chapters) then proper hermeneutic principles must follow the rules of context and common sense. Also the43 Greek grammar should not be ignored, if you can do that.

I hope that I made things clear for you, and that my my imaginative metaphors did not appear to be "fighting words"

 

[By Grace]

Thanks Doulos I'll take a look at it.

Before you do that, I suggest that you look critically at some of the titles of the lectures he has available on YouTube. I am watching a video by the guy suggested by Dulous,called "
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" and I see that at the 13:00 point of the lecture, he re-defines what Jesus said, when He said , "Matthew 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. " as this was preparation for this life, not the one to come. It is the "transformation for the life before death, and has nothing to do with heaven at all" And at the 21:35+ mark when Jesus says to the repentant thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in paradise" that "paradise is not the final destiny at all". that makes Jesus Christ into a liar.

Other lectures he has made are "Resurrection:L Historical fact, or Theological interpretation? "Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead?

Based upon those titles, and the outright distortions of the simple and plain meanings of the words of the Son of the Most High God, I would not trust anything that man says. He is a destroyer of faith.

BTW in case you do not know, the word "transform, transformational, etc." is the liberal "code word" for denying that there is indeed an actual heaven, and of course an actual hell.

 

[agua.]

`

I thought I gave you the answer in the gist of the reply previously. Evidently, that did not come through clearly, so here is a further expansion of that topic.

For some reason, you are failing to keep the purpose and the context of the passage in mind. The purpose of the passage is to remind the Corinthians to stop the "worship service" that evolved into chaos. While the usage of glossalia was mentioned, it was mentioned in the course of describing the chaos of their gatherings. In other words, while there are some who would make a big deal about tongues in the church, (my position is best described as "seek not, but forbid not" base4d on 1 Cor 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order. ) I do not believe that it was a major issue for Paul. He mentioned that he practices glossalia in the passage.

What is the big issue for Paul is chaos:

1 Corinthians 14: 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.​

.
Notice the limitations Paul places on tongues:

1. It must be done by AT LEAST two, but NOT MORE THAN three people (verse 27a)
2. It MUST be interpreted by ONE person (verse 27b)
3. If there is no interpreter available, then the man giving the glossalia should be silent (verse 28a)
4. If the man wants to "do his glossalia" and no one is available to interpret, then he must do it silently and to himself (verse 28b)
5. If there are those with the gift of prophecy (which I believe includes the proclamation of the Word) then let no more than three do it (verse 29a)
6. In that case, the members of the assembly are to hear and discern about what the prophets say (verse 29b)
7. If a special sort of knowledge comes to another, then he must not interrupt the one standing and speaking. (verse 30)

Can you imagine being in a church where some are running around in the aisles, some are barking like dogs or wolves, and some are laying prone on the floor and others are convulsing with laughter, ALL at the same time? In my imagination, that seems to be the type of chaos that was in the Corinthian church.

Can you see what I mean by context, and how it applies to this Scripture passage? What I am doing is rebelling at the position that many people take when reading the passage is that they are attempting to make the remedies for particular problems into universal practices for the entire church. I realize that I may be stepping on some toes here, perhaps shooting some "sacred cows" and I do not intend to do that.

However my position remains that if anyone takes verses out of their context, the result is always a pretext. The context of chapter 14 is that Paul addresses some significant problem issues in the Corinthian church. For example Chapter 11 deals with some issues surrounding the Eucharist, having factions and the consequent fightings, and having discernment at the Lord's table so that some do not heap condemnation upon themselves.

Therefore just as one should not take the situations mentioned in chapter 11 as normal for the church, so also should one not take the situations mentioned in chapter 14 as normal, either. If a practice is wrong in one chapter, then barring any obvious brakes (Chapters and verses were added much later to the Bible, and Paul did not make the verses or chapters) then proper hermeneutic principles must follow the rules of context and common sense. Also the43 Greek grammar should not be ignored, if you can do that.

I hope that I made things clear for you, and that my my imaginative metaphors did not appear to be "fighting words"

Yeah thanks By Grace but there's still the problem that amid the context of order during assembly in 1 Cor 14, that the issue of unfettered speaking in tongues is separated from the issue of women being silent. I agree the overall context is ordered worship but inside this Paul points out separate stipulations. Men should not be uncontrolled in tongue speaking and women should be silent. I'm not sure how you can blend the 2 because If we take the passage as it reads they are different subsets concerning this order.

As far as taking chapter 11 or chapter 14 as non-normal for the Church what do you say about Paul's admonition

1Co 11:16 KJV But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Are you suggesting Paul's instructions were for all Churches but only during that era ? Also notice Paul refers to the Created order and this is unchanged even to now don't you think ?

In 1Cor 11 we see women are permitted to pray and prophesy in Church ( if we accept inside Church is the arena here ) and so I agree in Chapter 14 these things are also permissible and the silence then may be about any speech outside of the spiritual operations in accordance with ordered worship .

Don't worry about stepping on toes mate by presenting something uncommon but be aware it's your Brothers and Sisters you're chatting with.

 

[agua.]

Am I understanding correctly that you think 1 Cor 14:27-28 (NIV) is addressing men only? If you are that is NOT the case. He is addressing ALL those in the Corinthian church, both men and women.

Gday Stan how's it going. No I think 1Cor14:27-28 is specifically about ordered tongue speaking ( I agree women are permitted to operate in spiritual gifts ).
ie I believe Brethren, man, and pronouns used in this section refer to persons both male and female. I do suggest however that 1Cor 14:34 is specifically about women though.

Again as far as 1 Cor 14:34-35 (NIV) is concerned please see my explanation in post #36. Paul is not issuing a command here, he is quoting an issue that was addressed to him. You have to read this along with 1 Cor 14:36-38 (NIV) to get the proper context. I know it's not something that people look for, but verse 36 is a sarcastic/facetious response by Paul to this issue of women remaining silent.

Ah ok you take the slogan position. I've only recently read about this and it is interesting. Do you suggest the translators weren't aware of this and omitted inverted commas ( to show Paul is quoting an incorrect assumption/rule ) by mistake ?

Now in this thread we have 4 different interpretations going this is interesting.

1. By grace suggests the subject matter is specifically about order in the Church and the silence upon women is only in regard to disorderly speech. ( + Deb)
2. Doulos suggests the passage is an interpolated addition and should be disregarded.
3. Stan suggests Paul is dealing with an incorrect practice and rebuking it in 1Cor14:36.
4. Agua suggests Paul is saying women should be silent ( aside from the previous stipulations concerning the spiritual gifts as per 1 Cor 11 ) ( + Butch+ For His Glory maybe )

I think everyone falls into one of these categories this reminds of the 1Peter 3 discussion :D

 

[agua.]

Before you do that, I suggest that you look critically at some of the titles of the lectures he has available on YouTube. I am watching a video by the guy suggested by Dulous,called "
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" and I see that at the 13:00 point of the lecture, he re-defines what Jesus said, when He said , "Matthew 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. " as this was preparation for this life, not the one to come. It is the "transformation for the life before death, and has nothing to do with heaven at all" And at the 21:35+ mark when Jesus says to the repentant thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in paradise" that "paradise is not the final destiny at all". that makes Jesus Christ into a liar.

Other lectures he has made are "Resurrection:L Historical fact, or Theological interpretation? "Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead?

Based upon those titles, and the outright distortions of the simple and plain meanings of the words of the Son of the Most High God, I would not trust anything that man says. He is a destroyer of faith.

BTW in case you do not know, the word "transform, transformational, etc." is the liberal "code word" for denying that there is indeed an actual heaven, and of course an actual hell.

Oky doky By Grace thanks for the tip I tend to screen everything I read.

 

[Stan1953]

Gday Stan how's it going. No I think 1Cor14:27-28 is specifically about ordered tongue speaking ( I agree women are permitted to operate in spiritual gifts ).
ie I believe Brethren, man, and pronouns used in this section refer to persons both male and female. I do suggest however that 1Cor 14:34 is specifically about women though.

G'deye mite!

IMO, it is about ordered worship period. No matter what is being done or said. In this instance Paul was dealing with basically chaos. He is dealing/responding to written and verbal reports. He was actually in Ephesus when He wrote this epistle.
Yes v34-35 is about women and it is about an issue that was, in the opinion of the leaders of that church, disruptive. There are varying opinions as to what exactly the issue was, but they vary from Jewish synagogue style of worship where women would yell to their husbands on the other side of the room for an explanation, as men and women sat separately, or because the style of Roman worship forbad women from participating in worship.

Ah ok you take the slogan position. I've only recently read about this and it is interesting. Do you suggest the translators weren't aware of this and omitted inverted commas ( to show Paul is quoting an incorrect assumption/rule ) by mistake ?
Now in this thread we have 4 different interpretations going this is interesting.
1. By grace suggests the subject matter is specifically about order in the Church and the silence upon women is only in regard to disorderly speech. ( + Deb)
2. Doulos suggests the passage is an interpolated addition and should be disregarded.
3. Stan suggests Paul is dealing with an incorrect practice and rebuking it in 1Cor14:36.
4. Agua suggests Paul is saying women should be silent ( aside from the previous stipulations concerning the spiritual gifts as per 1 Cor 11 ) ( + Butch+ For His Glory maybe )
I think everyone falls into one of these categories this reminds of the 1Peter 3 discussion :biggrin

I take the position that this section comes out of nowhere, so IMO it is responsive to what was in writing to him. I believe that Paul was addressing letters of correspondence from the Corinthian church leaders, so yes it is his response to a rabbinic slogan. As I stated above, it's not clear if it is from a Jewish perspective or a Roman perspective. Clearly it comes out of nowhere so it requires some contextualization. We must look at his questions in v36 to get the jist of what he is conveying here.
How he closes in 1 Cor 14:39-40 (NIV) would mean He is contradicting himself if we take his meaning to be an instruction in v34. Obviously he would not do that so based on his closing here we must review what he did say and was conveying in 34.
There is nothing else in all the NT that would support the view that Paul did not want women to speak in the church.

 

[By Grace]

Gday Stan how's it going. No I think 1Cor14:27-28 is specifically about ordered tongue speaking ( I agree women are permitted to operate in spiritual gifts ).

Ah ok you take the slogan position. I've only recently read about this and it is interesting. Do you suggest the translators weren't aware of this and omitted inverted commas ( to show Paul is quoting an incorrect assumption/rule ) by mistake ?

This explanation you cite, and # 2 have thew same problem. That is they assume things that are not suggested by the text, and more importantly, they violate all known facts regarding the writing, history, preservation and inerrancy of Scripture-- just to name a few things.

Foremost is the fact that there was no punctuation in the Koine Greek manuscripts. That was added later, when Scripture was translated into other languages, so by definition, punctuation is a post-reformation concept. Equally important is the fact that the Koine Greek was written in unicals, meaning all capital letters without a space between them. MYUSERNAMEHEREISBYGRACEANDIPOSTELSEWHEREALSO.

It is not a widely-know fact excepting around those who study or read about the New Testament document that there are now about 6000+ different pieces of old manuscripts, papyri, etc that is possible to track all the variants in the NT, know when and where they were made, and trace trace their "families" to see what other manuscripts were copied from the first copiest's gloss. The totality of these works (the more written witnesses, the greater the possibility of getting back to the original words, that with a great degree of certainty. and I am talking about >.9999% accuracy that is possible to determine what the words of the autographa. That is mind boggling!

So the problem with #2, and what aqua state is that they both treat the NT as if it were redacted by others, just like the liberals believe that Isaiah is really two different books. There is no evidence for either of those unintentional attempts to destroy Scripture, so these are merely baseless conjecture.

Now in this thread we have 4 different interpretations going this is interesting.

1. By grace suggests the subject matter is specifically about order in the Church and the silence upon women is only in regard to disorderly speech. ( + Deb)
2. Doulos suggests the passage is an interpolated addition and should be disregarded.
3. Stan suggests Paul is dealing with an incorrect practice and rebuking it in 1Cor14:36.
4. Agua suggests Paul is saying women should be silent ( aside from the previous stipulations concerning the spiritual gifts as per 1 Cor 11 ) ( + Butch+ For His Glory maybe )

I think everyone falls into one of these categories this reminds of the 1Peter 3 discussion :biggrin

I really thank you for your attempts to bring about harmony, really.

But what I do find lacking in the discussion is that there is a lack in some approaches of thinking something through. What I mean is, no one asks "if this really happened, then what are the effects on the rest of Scripture?" That is a serious matter IMHO.

I also believe that the summary of Stan' position (#3), and mine (#1) are identical. Indeed Paul was rebuking the church at Corinth, and the reason was that it was not worshiping in holiness, but was instead in chaos with people talking out of turn, not letting others finish, etc.

It is my turn to go to bed,and you Aussies are just getting up. 'G'night, y' all.

 

[agua.]

G'deye mite!

IMO, it is about ordered worship period. No matter what is being done or said. In this instance Paul was dealing with basically chaos. He is dealing/responding to written and verbal reports. He was actually in Ephesus when He wrote this epistle.
Yes v34-35 is about women and it is about an issue that was, in the opinion of the leaders of that church, disruptive. There are varying opinions as to what exactly the issue was, but they vary from Jewish synagogue style of worship where women would yell to their husbands on the other side of the room for an explanation, as men and women sat separately, or because the style of Roman worship forbad women from participating in worship.

Yes Stan I agree the overall subject is ordered worship. I've read of the several ideas you mention for sure.

I take the position that this section comes out of nowhere, so IMO it is responsive to what was in writing to him. I believe that Paul was addressing letters of correspondence from the Corinthian church leaders, so yes it is his response to a rabbinic slogan. As I stated above, it's not clear if it is from a Jewish perspective or a Roman perspective. Clearly it comes out of nowhere so it requires some contextualization. We must look at his questions in v36 to get the jist of what he is conveying here.
How he closes in 1 Cor 14:39-40 (NIV) would mean He is contradicting himself if we take his meaning to be an instruction in v34. Obviously he would not do that so based on his closing here we must review what he did say and was conveying in 34.
There is nothing else in all the NT that would support the view that Paul did not want women to speak in the church.

I think it was a Jewish perspective Stan which is why many people tie this passage to Patriarchal misogyny.

There is another option and that's that Paul wasn't forbidding women to use the spiritual gifts and worship practice as mentioned in 1Cor 11. Then the silence would be limited to all other speech ie. questioning or interjecting etc. In this case there isn't a contradiction but a regulation of all speech outside of that which is allowed. I see vs 36 as no more than admonishing this congregation to follow what he says and not think they are " the standard" etc.

I don't think we can totally rule out that Paul did mean to gag women ( outside of the above exemptions ) because we don't have other corroborating scriptures. I think we do have examples of Paul presenting the created order and headship arrangement between husband and wife which may be used as support for 1 Cor 14: 34. Of course some people also reject the notion of headship and I think 1Cor 11:10 is a very interesting and relevant scripture concerning this subject which points back to when satan rebelled and fell. imo. It's a very controversial but deep reaching subject this mate eh.

Oh I'd like to thank you for your insights and graceful conduct Brother.

 

[Stan1953]

Yes Stan I agree the overall subject is ordered worship. I've read of the several ideas you mention for sure.
I think it was a Jewish perspective Stan which is why many people tie this passage to Patriarchal misogyny.
There is another option and that's that Paul wasn't forbidding women to use the spiritual gifts and worship practice as mentioned in 1Cor 11. Then the silence would be limited to all other speech ie. questioning or interjecting etc. In this case there isn't a contradiction but a regulation of all speech outside of that which is allowed. I see vs 36 as no more than admonishing this congregation to follow what he says and not think they are " the standard" etc.
I don't think we can totally rule out that Paul did mean to gag women ( outside of the above exemptions ) because we don't have other corroborating scriptures. I think we do have examples of Paul presenting the created order and headship arrangement between husband and wife which may be used as support for 1 Cor 14: 34. Of course some people also reject the notion of headship and I think 1Cor 11:10 is a very interesting and relevant scripture concerning this subject which points back to when satan rebelled and fell. imo. It's a very controversial but deep reaching subject this mate eh.
Oh I'd like to thank you for your insights and graceful conduct Brother.

I actually used to think the idea of the Synagogue setting was possible, but I have learned that the setting in Corinth was one of converted pagans, so the Roman persuasion was probably the setting.
In any event, regardless of the impetus, Paul addressed it as he did by his facetious remark in v36.
You have to rule out any idea that Paul thought of women as less then equal to men in the church, due to those women he called his FELLOW workers. Other so-called headship issues that Paul dealt with Timothy on are also not taken in proper contextualization's.
It's not as controversial today as it once was, but there are still many men AND women who think this verse is meant to silence women from speaking in the church. I guess it's the fault of teachers and pastors conveying their own misconceptions. Again 1 Cor 14:39-40 (NIV) shows that Paul was NOT teaching women should remain silent.
I appreciate your spirit as well agua.

 

[agua.]

This explanation you cite, and # 2 have thew same problem. That is they assume things that are not suggested by the text, and more importantly, they violate all known facts regarding the writing, history, preservation and inerrancy of Scripture-- just to name a few things.

By Grace I'm a bit confused which explanations you're referring to here. I cited Stan's # 3 but my position is #4. If you mean #4 somehow makes assumptions and violates inerrancy ( I agree #2 does violate inerrancy and Doulos isn't denying this I think ) I don't see how.

Foremost is the fact that there was no punctuation in the Koine Greek manuscripts. That was added later, when Scripture was translated into other languages, so by definition, punctuation is a post-reformation concept. Equally important is the fact that the Koine Greek was written in unicals, meaning all capital letters without a space between them. MYUSERNAMEHEREISBYGRACEANDIPOSTELSEWHEREALSO.

It is not a widely-know fact excepting around those who study or read about the New Testament document that there are now about 6000+ different pieces of old manuscripts, papyri, etc that is possible to track all the variants in the NT, know when and where they were made, and trace trace their "families" to see what other manuscripts were copied from the first copiest's gloss. The totality of these works (the more written witnesses, the greater the possibility of getting back to the original words, that with a great degree of certainty. and I am talking about >.9999% accuracy that is possible to determine what the words of the autographa. That is mind boggling!

So the problem with #2, and what aqua state is that they both treat the NT as if it were redacted by others, just like the liberals believe that Isaiah is really two different books. There is no evidence for either of those unintentional attempts to destroy Scripture, so these are merely baseless conjecture.

#2 suggests interpolation ( addition to the original ) and # 3 suggests the phrase is a slogan ( no addition but Paul is citing an incorrect teaching in 1Cor 14:34,35 and rebuking it in 36 ).

I really thank you for your attempts to bring about harmony, really.

But what I do find lacking in the discussion is that there is a lack in some approaches of thinking something through. What I mean is, no one asks "if this really happened, then what are the effects on the rest of Scripture?" That is a serious matter IMHO.

I also believe that the summary of Stan' position (#3), and mine (#1) are identical. Indeed Paul was rebuking the church at Corinth, and the reason was that it was not worshiping in holiness, but was instead in chaos with people talking out of turn, not letting others finish, etc.

It is my turn to go to bed,and you Aussies are just getting up. 'G'night, y' all.

I'm not trying to harmonize our positions By Grace but keep the discussion peaceful and good spirited. There's absolutely no harmony in the 4 ideas we got going on here :D but then #1 #2 & #3 have the same basis for argument. I think you're right about the #2 position in that it has serious consequences on the rest of scripture and casts doubt over any controversial passages. I disagree that #1 #3 & #4 create any great dilemma with other scriptures because all 3 have surrounding arguments. Even #2 has the same logic basis as #1 & #3 ( that the rest of scripture doesn't suggest women should be totally silent in church ) and it's only difference is the interpolation claim.

The difference between #1 & #3 is in the reason behind Paul's admonition I think. #1 is all about keeping the worship orderly and the silence upon women is simply a restatement and maybe expansion of the unordered tongue speaking etc where #3 suggests Paul is saying " women don't need to be silent as some Jewish (?) teaching states who do you blokes think you are etc " .

I do agree the overriding message is ordered worship and Paul is giving instructions on restraint. Wow boy what a mess Mr Hart. Thanks for your patience By Grace it's now 4 pm here Friday arvo TGIF I hope you slept well Brother.

 

[agua.]

I actually used to think the idea of the Synagogue setting was possible, but I have learned that the setting in Corinth was one of converted pagans, so the Roman persuasion was probably the setting.
In any event, regardless of the impetus, Paul addressed it as he did by his facetious remark in v36.
You have to rule out any idea that Paul thought of women as less then equal to men in the church, due to those women he called his FELLOW workers. Other so-called headship issues that Paul dealt with Timothy on are also not taken in proper contextualization's.
It's not as controversial today as it once was, but there are still many men AND women who think this verse is meant to silence women from speaking in the church. I guess it's the fault of teachers and pastors conveying their own misconceptions. Again 1 Cor 14:39-40 (NIV) shows that Paul was NOT teaching women should remain silent.
I appreciate your spirit as well agua.

Stan I don't see any issue with equality here but simply a connection to the created order Paul references in 1Cor 11 and goes back to before satan fell. imo. Have you considered the implications of 1Cor 11:10 ? This is a bit of a sidetrack but may be directly related imo. What's your understanding of "because of the angels" ?

 

[By Grace]

By Grace I'm a bit confused which explanations you're referring to here. I cited Stan's # 3 but my position is #4. If you mean #4 somehow makes assumptions and violates inerrancy ( I agree #2 does violate inerrancy and Doulos isn't denying this I think ) I don't see how.

OY VEY!
Such a pity!
I was tired, and concentrating on the arguments rather than the enumeration. So you are correct, and nothing was intended other than having a few brain cells move into per-senile dementia.

#2 suggests interpolation ( addition to the original ) and # 3 suggests the phrase is a slogan ( no addition but Paul is citing an incorrect teaching in 1Cor 14:34,35 and rebuking it in 36).

We agree about #2 being a case for interpolation. However, I am wondering about your interpolation of the word "slogan" into what you originally posted: "3. Stan suggests Paul is dealing with an incorrect practice and rebuking it in 1Cor14:36. " (couldn't resist!)

At any rate, both what you wrote about #3, and #2 are arguments from silence. Regarding the idea of a slogan, if there were evidences of that being a slogan anywhere in the available literature, then there would be something somewhere that made an allusion to this "slogan" . Secondly, this is an argument from silence of context. Jesus frequently said, :you have heard it said..." when introducing a slogan, or remarking on a false teaching. Due to the perspicuity of the Pauline Scriptures, it is a leap of logic to assume that Paul would do such a thing without giving his readers a clue as to what he was doing.

In truth, and in argumentation the only thing that silence on an issue proves is silence, but that does not come into the picture here. Paul made a clear statement, and did not equivocate in any manner. Therefore to create a "pseudo explanation" to explain away what he actually stated is attempting to make a negative statement (Paul did not really mean that ) from silence on any extenuating circumstance. Ultimate, I believe that it is an unintendes attempt to destroy the credibility of Scripture, and that is why I reject both .

I'm not trying to harmonize our positions By Grace but keep the discussion peaceful and good spirited. There's absolutely no harmony in the 4 ideas we got going on here :biggrin but then #1 #2 & #3 have the same basis for argument. I think you're right about the #2 position in that it has serious consequences on the rest of scripture and casts doubt over any controversial passages. I disagree that #1 #3 & #4 create any great dilemma with other scriptures because all 3 have surrounding arguments. Even #2 has the same logic basis as #1 & #3 ( that the rest of scripture doesn't suggest women should be totally silent in church ) and it's only difference is the interpolation claim.

Perhaps I should have stated it better. I actually meant that you are attempting to CREATE HARMONY; and indeed there is great disparity in the positions. That is why I like this board, we seek understandings among brothers and sisters and we do not vilify any who disagree with us.

What I did not make clear is my presuppositional approach of inerrancy in the autographa. By that, I mean that when God caused the original Scriptures (hence autographs (singular) and autographa), He caused the writers to uniquely write in their own personal style EXACTLY what He wanted them to say. As a result, the Bible is the direct and inerrant words of God that He wished to have us read.

The difference between #1 & #3 is in the reason behind Paul's admonition I think. #1 is all about keeping the worship orderly and the silence upon women is simply a restatement and maybe expansion of the unordered tongue speaking etc where #3 suggests Paul is saying " women don't need to be silent as some Jewish (?) teaching states who do you blokes think you are etc " .

I do agree the overriding message is ordered worship and Paul is giving instructions on restraint. Wow boy what a mess Mr Hart. Thanks for your patience By Grace it's now 4 pm here Friday arvo TGIF I hope you slept well Brother.

In actuality, I believe that chapters 11 through 14 are each inter-related because they are about about changing some bad practices. Specifically in chapter 11 are instructions on how to keep the Lord's supper and how there was gluttony going on in the meal sharing, Then chapter 12 talks about the proper usage of the spiritual gifts in the church, and there is no sort of gender differentiation among them (which I believe is significant when it comes to chapter 14. And then chapter 13 is all about how we are to express agape love to each other.

Because we are so far removed from the practices the Greek pantheon as a form of "acceptable worship" we tend to forget its nature, Suffice it to say, the Greek (and Roman) Temple worship involved all sorts of debauchery such as ritual sexual encounters, and more. They certainly did not teach that sort of stuff when I learned about the "wonderful culture" of the ancients when I was in seventh grade.

Since these early Christians were converted pagans in many of the cities Paul sent his Epistle, it is not a leap of logic to assume that some of the behaviors, minus the debauchery, took place in the house churches. They simply did not know any better, and were transferring one set of circumstantial behaviors into another somewhat similar (in their knowledge base) situation. So they were working from a place of common practice, and being in ignorance of the holiness of God. They were not evil, nor were they stubborn. But because this ignorance was so pervasive, I believe that Paul was not limiting his correction to a single event, but addressing a whole raft of issues in those 4 chapters.

Does that make sense?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Before you do that, I suggest that you look critically at some of the titles of the lectures he has available on YouTube. I am watching a video by the guy suggested by Dulous,called "
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" and I see that at the 13:00 point of the lecture, he re-defines what Jesus said, when He said , "Matthew 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. " as this was preparation for this life, not the one to come. It is the "transformation for the life before death, and has nothing to do with heaven at all" And at the 21:35+ mark when Jesus says to the repentant thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in paradise" that "paradise is not the final destiny at all". that makes Jesus Christ into a liar.

Other lectures he has made are "Resurrection:L Historical fact, or Theological interpretation? "Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead?

Based upon those titles, and the outright distortions of the simple and plain meanings of the words of the Son of the Most High God, I would not trust anything that man says. He is a destroyer of faith.

BTW in case you do not know, the word "transform, transformational, etc." is the liberal "code word" for denying that there is indeed an actual heaven, and of course an actual hell.

Wow, really?!

N.T. Wright is NOT liberal. He believes that when a believer dies they go to heaven, which is to enjoy the peaceful presence of Jesus, but he believes that the kingdom of God/heaven is referring to Gods New Creation which has begun in the ministry and resurrection of Jesus. That Resurrection of course being being a bodily one.

He emphasizes all this because so many people think that God is just going to have us zapped into heaven and then throw away this world. Rather the NT is about heaven breaking into this world with the incarnation and pouring out of the Holy Spirit. He wants to restore this good creation and raise us to reign over this world with him.

NT Wright has been probably the best defender of the bodily resurrection of Jeaus, which is the orthodox position. He does not reject hell or heaven either.

Nothing you have said about this great scholar is true (Edited and removed, ToS 2.4, Obadiah).

I've read a large amount of his works and know what he believes, and everything you said was not true. If it were not for me discovering NT Wright, I am not sure where I would be in my faith. God has used him in many ways to increase my faith and more deeply love Him and His gospel.

(Edited and removed, ToS 2.4, Obadiah.)

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Oky doky By Grace thanks for the tip I tend to screen everything I read.

Everything By Grace said was untrue, please read my response to him as someone who is an expert on NT Wright's teachings.

Also, I don't think #2 violates inerrancy because inerrancy is based upon the original autographs. It doesn't suppose that all future manuscripts and translations will be inerrant. Interpolations therefore do not violate inerrancy.

 

[Deborah13]

N.T. Wright - Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

What happened on resurrection day?

I just watched to this whole video on youtube and it is very, very good.
The whole teaching is that the resurrection really happened. N.T. Wright discusses the arguments that are made against the resurrection of the Messiah and why some just don't hold up at all or are so weak that they must be dismissed.
He discusses the pagan beliefs about death and resurrection, the Jewish beliefs about death and resurrection, and how the Resurrection of the Messiah was different. How the resurrection proved to the apostles and disciples that Jesus was the Messiah.

If you witness to people who question that the resurrection happened then this may help you discuss it with them from the scriptures.
If they have questions about Christians being resurrected after death and where we will spend eternity it also gives some teaching on that, but it mostly about the Resurrection of the Messiah, being True.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Removed, ToS 2.4, Obadiah.

Give other members the respect you would have them give to yourself. (ToS 2.4)

Address issues/ideas, not persons or personalities. Do not insult, publicly post derogatory opinions of others, post insinuation to belittle or discredit, or otherwise create a hostile environment. Present evidence for support or rebuttal during debate. Bashing the author of another view or opinion is not evidence.

 

[Stan1953]

Stan I don't see any issue with equality here but simply a connection to the created order Paul references in 1Cor 11 and goes back to before satan fell. imo. Have you considered the implications of 1Cor 11:10 ? This is a bit of a sidetrack but may be directly related imo. What's your understanding of "because of the angels" ?

IMO a woman's covering IS her long hair, as Paul stated in v15, but this is a whole other issue. Again, IMO Paul here in 1 Cor 11, is dealing with a different issue that has nothing to do with submission to men, but more than likely another cultural issue that raised itself in this church. When I was first saved back in 1971, many women wore hats in church and I was led to believe that is was scriptural in nature. I quickly discovered as did many, that this was not the case.
As far as angels are concerned, that is a whole other thread. The NT is replete with references about angels. Paul does allude to them constantly and Luke in Hebrews does teach that they were instrumental in distributing the Law.

 

[agua.]

OY VEY!
Such a pity!
I was tired, and concentrating on the arguments rather than the enumeration. So you are correct, and nothing was intended other than having a few brain cells move into per-senile dementia.

Oky doky no worries.

We agree about #2 being a case for interpolation. However, I am wondering about your interpolation of the word "slogan" into what you originally posted: "3. Stan suggests Paul is dealing with an incorrect practice and rebuking it in 1Cor14:36. " (couldn't resist!)

Ah ok. the reason i used "slogan" is because this is the interpretation Stan raised. I didn't use the word as mine but borrowed it from those who use this argument if you get my drift. My summary of Stan's position #3 leaves out the basis and concentrates on the subject. Sorry about that.

At any rate, both what you wrote about #3, and #2 are arguments from silence. Regarding the idea of a slogan, if there were evidences of that being a slogan anywhere in the available literature, then there would be something somewhere that made an allusion to this "slogan" . Secondly, this is an argument from silence of context. Jesus frequently said, :you have heard it said..." when introducing a slogan, or remarking on a false teaching. Due to the perspicuity of the Pauline Scriptures, it is a leap of logic to assume that Paul would do such a thing without giving his readers a clue as to what he was doing.

In truth, and in argumentation the only thing that silence on an issue proves is silence, but that does not come into the picture here. Paul made a clear statement, and did not equivocate in any manner. Therefore to create a "pseudo explanation" to explain away what he actually stated is attempting to make a negative statement (Paul did not really mean that ) from silence on any extenuating circumstance. Ultimate, I believe that it is an unintendes attempt to destroy the credibility of Scripture, and that is why I reject both .

I don't know how to address #2 from any interpretation basis because it insists the passage isn't scripture so I'll leave that one alone I think. It's interesting what you say about #3 and I mostly agree aside from the "argument from silence" part because I can ( loosely) see Paul doing something similar a Romans. ( very loosely )

Rom 6:15 KJV What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

#3 suggests Paul is introducing a negative 1Cor 14:34,35 ( eg shall we sin because we are not under the law ) and then rebuking it in 36 ( eg God forbid ). I don't accept this position either but this is the logic behind it and I don't think we can put #2 &#3 in the same category as a threat to the credibility of scripture. Remember #3 uses the same premise of #1 as it's basis ( that Paul doesn't insist on silence for women and this isn't supported anywhere else )

Perhaps I should have stated it better. I actually meant that you are attempting to CREATE HARMONY; and indeed there is great disparity in the positions. That is why I like this board, we seek understandings among brothers and sisters and we do not vilify any who disagree with us.

What I did not make clear is my presuppositional approach of inerrancy in the autographa. By that, I mean that when God caused the original Scriptures (hence autographs (singular) and autographa), He caused the writers to uniquely write in their own personal style EXACTLY what He wanted them to say. As a result, the Bible is the direct and inerrant words of God that He wished to have us read.

It's interesting when we get into the inerrancy issue because every Statement of Faith I know of claims " inerrancy in the original autographs" which always opens a can of worms. When you say God caused the original Scriptures and directed the writers are you talking about the original autographs or do you also include the copies/ translations ie. do you accept God guided the copiers so that they did not add or take away from the originals ? If we accept our current translations are inerrant why do we insist on making the inerrancy claim only on the original Autographs ? ( I'm not asking these questions in any way supporting #2 btw. )

In actuality, I believe that chapters 11 through 14 are each inter-related because they are about about changing some bad practices. Specifically in chapter 11 are instructions on how to keep the Lord's supper and how there was gluttony going on in the meal sharing, Then chapter 12 talks about the proper usage of the spiritual gifts in the church, and there is no sort of gender differentiation among them (which I believe is significant when it comes to chapter 14. And then chapter 13 is all about how we are to express agape love to each other.

Because we are so far removed from the practices the Greek pantheon as a form of "acceptable worship" we tend to forget its nature, Suffice it to say, the Greek (and Roman) Temple worship involved all sorts of debauchery such as ritual sexual encounters, and more. They certainly did not teach that sort of stuff when I learned about the "wonderful culture" of the ancients when I was in seventh grade.

Since these early Christians were converted pagans in many of the cities Paul sent his Epistle, it is not a leap of logic to assume that some of the behaviors, minus the debauchery, took place in the house churches. They simply did not know any better, and were transferring one set of circumstantial behaviors into another somewhat similar (in their knowledge base) situation. So they were working from a place of common practice, and being in ignorance of the holiness of God. They were not evil, nor were they stubborn. But because this ignorance was so pervasive, I believe that Paul was not limiting his correction to a single event, but addressing a whole raft of issues in those 4 chapters.

Does that make sense?

Yeah I can't disagree with what you say here By Grace and agree Paul was dealing with many issues which interrupted the worship service. I agree also that there's no gender differentiation in the operation of the Spirit gifts and #4 accepts this and makes the exemption ie. I suggest the silence instruction upon women doesn't effect the previous allowances. We haven't delved into the beginning of 1Cor11 and how the headship issue may relate to this subject do you think it could be ? To even think about discussing this I probably need to have your understanding of 1Cor 11: 1-10 and especially of why this issue of headship had implication upon the Angels. What is your understanding of " because of the Angels" in context with headship ?

 

[agua.]

Everything By Grace said was untrue, please read my response to him as someone who is an expert on NT Wright's teachings.

I watched ( not finished yet ) the youtube " Did Jesus really rise from the dead" and can see that there are some sections which when taken in isolation look very dodgy but aren't really. I'll need to finish watching it and there are some things I don't agree with ( that's not unusual :D ). I think I'll have to hold my opinion for now.

Also, I don't think #2 violates inerrancy because inerrancy is based upon the original autographs. It doesn't suppose that all future manuscripts and translations will be inerrant. Interpolations therefore do not violate inerrancy.

Yeah Doulos I understand this and I see that #2 is only addressing one particular section and not attacking the whole Bible's inerrancy but do you think this could be used as argument against other scriptures ? I think it's a concern.